For too long, scientists who promote the hypothesis that man’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are causing dangerous global warming have been given a free ride by politicians and the press. Their pronouncements, no matter how fantastic, are accepted without question and repeated ad nauseam by compliant governments and reporters alike. When scientists do what all scientists are supposed to do — question and probe — they are treated as enemies of the people and condemned by opinion leaders.

With the upcoming release of the latest UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, 2013 can be the year governments and media grow up on climate change.

Treat catastrophists who push for climate and energy policies that would bankrupt us just as we do other end-of-the-world cultists: demand they prove their beliefs before providing them the time of day, let alone our tax dollars. Insist that climate catastrophists cease with their speculations and instead employ the scientific method.

In one of the biggest body blows to climate alarmism comes an astonishing new u-turn from NASA. In essence, the prestigious American space agency has admitted it has been shackled for decades into towing a political line over man-made global warming so as to play down key solar factors.

The astonishing NASA announcement comes in the wake of a compelling new study just published titled, “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate.” One of the participants, Greg Kopp of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado, overturned mainstream climate science thinking by declaring even slight changes in solar output have a considerable impact on climate. Kopp conceded, "Even typical short term variations of 0.1% in incident irradiance exceed all other energy sources (such as natural radioactivity in Earth's core) combined."

The full report by Dr. Tony PhillipsThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. is available from the National Academies Press. The news story reveals NASA’s upper management was barred from stopping climate activist, James Hansen, head of NASA’s research on climate, from promoting a political agenda. The NASA climate retreat signals that a paradigm shift is now in full swing and the discredited claims of man-made global warming alarmists are being tossed aside at the highest levels of government.

Fast-growing maverick science body, Principia Scientific International (PSI) takes three more steps closer to defeating junk climate science and forcing an overhaul of the world’s “broken” science peer-review system. In the courts PSI’s chairman, Dr. Tim Ball hammers two prominent climate scientists, while in the science labs PSI’s debunk of the alleged greenhouse gas effect (GHE) has won over another slew of key recruits including a prominent climate researcher.

Today renowned climate expert Hans Jelbring and Bryan Leyland, chairman and co-founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC) each announce themselves among dozens of new faces in the PSI team. Leyland’s influential skeptic body also issues a press release seen as further validation of PSI’s indomitable stance in refuting greenhouse gas science.

But it is at the courtrooms of British Columbia, Canada that we must first begin our rousing roundup of news. It is here that popular Canadian climatologist, Dr Tim Ball delivers the evidence signalling not one, but two impending dramatic legal victories against carbon hating junk climate scientists. Specialist Canadian libel firm, Pearlman Lindholm of Vancouver are to announce the filing of separate counterclaims on behalf of Dr. Ball and against discredited climate professors Michael Mann and Andrew Weaver. Recently the Nobel Committee affirmed that both professors lied when each claimed to be co-winners of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

A poll conducted on November 5 by Rasmussen Reports found that an all-time high of 68% of “likely U.S. voters” say that global warming is “a serious problem”; 38% of them thought it was “very serious.”

Considering the benefits of warming and the fact that even the UK Met office shows that there has been no global warming in the past 16 years, this demonstrates the degree to which the population has been propagandized into believing the opposite of reality. We are the first generation in history to believe that climatic warming is a bad thing.

In a warmer world, less energy is needed for heating and transportation, resulting in less air, land, and water pollution. Snow and ice that seriously hamper movement and increase the costs of land and water shipping are reduced. Roads, bridges, and other infrastructure maintenance costs drop, as there would be less freeze/thaw and ice damage. Clothing expenses obviously reduce in a warmer world, and construction costs plummet as less insulation is required in all buildings.

The benefits of warming are especially prominent in agriculture. Longer frost-free periods will extend growing seasons as well as the extent of agriculture in middle- and high-latitude regions. More and greater varieties of food are then possible in areas that are currently agriculturally marginal.

They say truth is stranger than fiction. And here is the proof. Let’s begin at the end, or where an “end” might be perceived today.

Climatologist, Michael Mann is now exposed by the Nobel Committee perjuring himself in his botched courtroom capers hoping to silence critics of his junk climate science claims. Even the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has now thrown Mann under the bus. But what has that got to do with the Huffington Post and their lies about me? Well, it seems that HuffPo’s ploy to trash my name has backfired as badly as Mann’s phony Nobel Prize claims. In their haste to trash my name HuffPo has exposed at least one of Mann’s own witnesses also committing perjury.

In this article we see there are no “white lies” told by this cheating scientist and his cronies. Lies perpetrated by Mann, and at least one other co-conspirator, are lies given under oath in a court of law with the express intention of inflicting serious financial harm on an opposing litigant. This matter refers specifically to the now crumbling Mann-v-Ball lawsuit filed last year in the British Columbia Supreme Court.

It seems in the interim Mann’s Canadian lawyer recruited a disgraced former journalist from the Journal of the American Medical Association to provide faked evidence to smear me and thus Tim Ball, by association.

It’s been an extraordinary week for PSI both in the news and behind the scenes. A dramatic twist in a high profile lawsuit, the publication of a new paper set to trigger a scientific paradigm shift, plus a membership surge bringing eminent scientists into the fold - including one Nobel Science Prize nominee.

The biggest media story concerns developments in the Climategate scandal involving disgraced Penn. State University researcher, Dr. Michael Mann and our very own chairman, Dr. Timothy Ball. It seems Ball is on the brink of a sensational courtroom victory over Mann, who first stole onto the world stage thanks to his ‘hockey stick’ graph trumpeted across the world in 2001 by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Mann’s graph was widely cited as the smoking gun proving catastrophic man-made global warming.

Temperatures boiled over when Ball fearlessly declared that Mann belongs “in the state pen, not Penn. State.” That quip incensed the thin-skinned Mann into filing a libel suit against Ball in the British Columbia Supreme Court, Canada.

Hard to believe that was almost 18 months ago! But now the tables have turned and last Friday Mann was exposed for the crime of perjury. It transpired that he lied when making sworn statements under oath that he was a co-winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize alongside former Vice President, Al Gore and the UN’s IPCC.

Al Gore did more to bring melting Arctic ice to global attention and concern than anyone. Polar bears became victims and poster animals for destructive human production of CO2. He’s done more than most in creating false ideas and images for his political and economic agenda.

When asked what’s wrong with global warming people usually hesitate for some time, then say glaciers will melt and sea level will rise. That’s probably why Gore made it a major part of his movie. To add emotion to fear the demise of polar bears was threatened. People were easily fooled because few know anything about the Arctic Ocean and the ice conditions.

The Arctic Ocean, a thin line across the top of most world maps is over 14 million km2 (compare US 9.8 million km2). Every year an area equal to the US melts and refreezes and based on a record that began in 1980 (satellite launch 1978 but useable data took 2 years) we presumably can determine the true amount and variations. Gore likely knew people wouldn’t grasp the size of areas involved so added polar bears and the threat of thinning – “thin ice” is a well known danger sign.

Why did Bill McKibben, who has made a career of presenting natural events as unnatural environmental disasters, take a 2004 story and put it on his Twitter? There are two choices when lies are exposed, admit the error or defend the indefensible. McKibben chose the latter. On his Twitter he referenced a National Geographic headline,

“Things that normally happen in geologic time are happening during the span of a human lifetime”.

Different cultures have different views of the world that change with time. Most are unaware or even think about them and live quite happily. For 2000 years western Europeans were happy with the Ptolemaic view of the solar system with the Sun going round the Earth. It was replaced by the Copernican view, which troubled the church but not the people. As long as the Sun rose and set it didn’t matter. It wasn’t proved scientifically until 1837 by the astronomer Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel.

Now the religion is environmentalism. Most, especially the believers, don’t know it’s based on the philosophy of uniformitarianism. This evolved with Darwin and underpins the Earth Sciences. It assumes change is gradual over long periods of time. It replaced Neptunism, the biblical view that divides history into of pre and post Flood – the phrase antediluvian (before the Flood) applies, but has become as entrenched. Exploitation of uniformitarianism allowed promotion of the idea that any change was unnatural and due to human activity.

Why do ‘official’ climate scientists need spin doctors? Because they practice politics not science. Climategate like Watergate was completely undone by the cover up of disgraceful behavior disclosed in emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in November 2009.

The first 1000 emails included some selected to expose behavior unacceptable even without knowledge of climatology. Others show how the anthropogneic global warming (AGW) science was conjured. Exposure of CRU members was important because they dominated and controlled the major portions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports. The leaks achieved their objective of derailing the political program of the Conference of the Parties (COP) 15 in Copenhagen. The COP was in a bind because they’re starting point is IPCC science.

The University of East Anglia (UEA) hired Neil Wallis of Outside Organization to handle the fall out. Wallis, a former News of The World editor was later arrested in connection with the egregious phone hacking scandals. The emails exposed politicized climate science so political spin-doctors were required. University spokesperson Trevor Davies said it was a “reputation management” problem, which he said they don’t handle well. Apparently telling the truth was rejected.